"Kurt S Frank" wrote in message news:<3C4A7939.28AA4C84@optusnet.com.au>... Our gaming group decided to give this game another try despite some truly ludicrous events without any historical justification in our previous game. For example every country in the game invaded Spain, even though it had no external possessions, as it was threatening to do something truly horrible, that is, to win. So this time we wrote up some national objectives in the hope that it might produce play that bore some resemblance to historical reality, unfortunately this failed completely and the game was called in July 1806. This time Russia was at war with Spain and Turkey when France declared war on Austria. The immediate result of this was that Turkey and Russia declared war on France (losing 5pp each) even though their war was still ongoing. This, along with some appalling luck for the French player resulted in the game being called. Anyway, the objectives we came up with are listed here, hopefully some other group might get them to work. For the navy/army strength bonuses minor free state forces (unless separately at war), garrisons and Turkish feudal corps (even if off map) are included but Austrian Insurrection and Tyrolian revolt corps are not (unless they are on the map). Items such as "-2vp simply for being Russian!" are intended as balancing factors. France National Objectives The points listed below are awarded every Victory Points Step, France CANNOT lose more than 8 Vp per victory points step due to these rules. -7 Vp for attempting to eat frogs and snails into extinction. -1 Vp for every province of the French home nation that has been ceded. -1 Vp if France is NOT a Dominant Major Power. +1 Vp for each of the following that France controls: Flanders, Holland, Lombardy, Palatinate, Piedmont, Switzerland, Poland and the Kingdom of Italy. +2 Vp for French control of the Confederation of the Rhine if it consists of 10 or more minor countries /provinces (countries with corps count as 2 countries), otherwise +1 Vp for control of the Confederation of the Rhine. +1 Vp if France has the largest navy in Europe. +1 Vp if the French army is larger than the 2 largest out of the Austrian, Prussian, British and Spanish armies combined. +2 Vp if France is the only Dominant Major Power. Great Britain National Objectives The points listed below are awarded every Victory Points Step. -1 Vp for every province of the British home nation that has been ceded. -1 Vp each if Gibraltar and/or Malta are NOT British controlled. -1 Vp if Portugal is controlled by a major power other than Britain. -1 Vp if there are enemy land forces in unceded provinces of Britain. -1 Vp if Britain does NOT have the largest navy in Europe. -2 Vp if Britain is NOT a dominant major power. +1 Vp for British control of Hanover. +1 Vp if there is only one dominant major power other than Britain AND at least three major powers including Britain are at war with that power (at least four major powers including Britain against Napoleon's France). +1 Vp if Britain has a larger navy than the rest of Europe combined. +2 Vp if Britain is the only dominant major Power. Russia National Objectives The points listed below are awarded every Victory Points Step -2 Vp simply for being Russian! -1 Vp for every province of the Russian home nation that has been ceded. +1 Vp for Russian control of each of the following: Armenia, Bessarabia, Moldavia, East Galicia, West Galicia, Poland (must be created) and Sweden (must include Finland). +1 Vp if Russia has the largest navy in Europe. +1 Vp if the Russian army is larger than the 2 largest out of the Prussian, Austrian and Turkish armies combined. +1 Vp if Russia is a Dominant Major Power. Austria National Objectives The points listed below are awarded every Victory Points Step. -1 Vp for every province of the Austrian home nation that has been ceded. +1 Vp for Austrian control of each of the following: Bosnia, Serbia, Silesia, Piedmont, Switzerland and the Kingdom of Italy. +2 Vp for Austrian control of the Holy Roman Empire if it consists of 10 or more minor countries /provinces (minor countries with corps count as 2 for this purpose), otherwise +1 Vp for control of the Holy Roman Empire. + 1 Vp if the Austrian army is larger than the largest out of the French, Prussian, Russian or Turkish armies. +1 Vp if Austria is a Dominant Major Power. Prussia National Objectives The points listed below are awarded every Victory Points Step -1 Vp for dreaming of Freddy's glory days while waiting for Bismark. -1 Vp for every province of the Prussian home nation that has been ceded. +1 Vp for Prussian control of each of the following: Lorraine, Moravia, Denmark, Palatinate and Poland (Masovia does not incur a penalty as a ceded home nation province for a Prussian controlled Poland). +2 Vp for Prussian control of the Confederation of the Rhine if it consists of 10 or more minor countries /provinces (countries with corps count as 2 countries), otherwise +1 Vp for control of the Confederation of the Rhine. +1 Vp if the Prussian army is larger than the largest out of the British, French, Austrian or Russian armies. +1 Vp if Prussia is a Dominant Major Power. Spain National Objectives The points listed below are awarded every Victory Points Step. -1 Vp for believing that Spain is on a holy mission to bring all the heretics back to the one true faith. -1 Vp for every province of the Spanish home nation that has been ceded. +1 Vp for Spanish control of each of the following: Gibraltar, Morocco, Portugal and the Kingdom of the Two Sicilies (both Naples and Sicily). +2 Vp for Spanish control of the Kingdom of Italy. +1 Vp if Spain has the largest navy in Europe. +1 Vp if the Spanish army is larger than the largest out of the British or French Armies. +2 Vp if Spain is a Dominant Major Power. Turkey National Objectives The points listed below are awarded every Victory Points Step. -1 Vp for destroying the last remnant of the Roman Empire. -1 Vp for every province of the Turkish home nation that has been ceded. +1 Vp for Turkish control of each of the following: Crimea, Georgia, Podolia, Transylvania and Military Border. +2 Vp for Turkish control of the Ottoman Empire if it consists of 5 or more minor countries, otherwise 1 Vp for control of the Ottoman Empire. +1 Vp if Turkey has the largest navy in Europe. +1 Vp if the Turkish army is larger than the largest out of the Austrian or Russian armies. +2 Vp if Turkey is a Dominant Major Power. Christian Beijner wrote in message news:<3C4C2A65.E6484C09@nada.kth.se> Kurt S Frank wrote: > > I'm not sure I made it quite clear what I was trying to achieve when > writing these national objectives, simply put I was hoping to create a system > that would encourage historical play. > > Perhaps the most blatant flaw is that the political system allows (and the > victory point system encourages) the players to act in a way that at best > takes serious advantage of historical hindsight. I generally agree with your analysis. > Even worse, at times the victory point system encourages players to act in > a way that is clearly at odds with their nation's long term interests. If, > say, Turkey was doing extremely well then the historical French response would > be "Excellent, that should keep the Austrians distracted", but in the game it > becomes "Oh, no, I'll have to ally with Austria and go crush them". Perhaps your players are being to aggressive. In the case of Turkey above, it probably would have been wiser for France to promise not to hit Austria in the back if he went and attacked Turkey. And the big balancing power, Britain should be able to hit Turkey easily, without aid or permission. > Our Russian player said of his involvement in the great alliance to crush > Spain "Yes, I know it's stupid, I know there's no historical justification for > it and I know I won't respect myself in the morning, but it's what I've got to > do to win. Besides with every other ridiculous thing that's happened in this > game, one more isn't going to matter." My gaming group felt cheated and dirty > after playing the game and swore never to do so again unless constraints > and/or penalities/bonuses were put in to give it a more historical flavour. Perhaps an analysis of the victory conditions are in order. Sorry for the abstract manner of this analysis as my rulebook and chart currently are inaccessible to me. If everybody declares war on a power then that power can have peace with all nations for roughly the same price as surrendering to 1 or 2 powers. And for the power declaring war it is a -2 (?) +3(?) for a net gain of 1 pt shift on the victory point table. Balance this with the fact, that if Russia wants to do something about Spain, then he will have to sail fleets to Spain, build depots on them, pay depot supply, perhaps pay fleet maintainenance at $5 and so on. So it could cost a lot for that small gain. > >It seems your system adds a lot more points into the system and thus > >haphazardness. If things go well for someone, say France early on, then > >you REALLY need to hit them in the mid/later game. With an average of > >7-8 VP awarded every 3 turns, little points can really hurt or float a > nation. > > The idea was that if France had achieved all it's objectives then it > should be able to coast to a win. Remember that historically France only > choose to start two major power wars in this period, Spain in 1808 and Russia > in 1812, all the others were forced upon France to some degree. Rather > interesting that the ones she started were the complete disasters, there's got > to be a moral in there somewhere. It's a game. If France has won by 1810, then start a new game. As for France declaring war only twice, well Prussia did declare war in 1807, but it was France that actually provoked the war and they prepared for it. As a non-analogous comparasion, Japan never declared war on China in 1937, nor on Britain/USA in 1941. The point being that the aggressor not always declares war. As for the war of 1813, well France did occupy Prussia and inflicted a very humiliating peace on them. So France sort of asked for it. All of Napoleon's wars can be seen as results of extending french power and attempts to check it, no matter who declared war in the particular cases. >None the less if France had gained Germany, > Italy and Poland then she had gained everything she wanted in Europe and there > is no HISTORICAL justification for continuing to roll neighbouring countries. > However in EiA to win France has to keep on smashing it's neighbours, the > objectives were meant avoid this effect and offer an alternative path to > victory. The economic manipulation serves this purpose to some effect, you can maintain war successes longer while at peace by manipulating to stay higher on the Victory point track. I heartily recommend it. Alliances and forming the minor powers (Rhine, Westphalia etc), if done at the right time can also serve to hold a power up on the track. > >For instance if I play Russia, I make it my mission - at some > >point in the game - to take the 3 border states from Turkey. > > I suggest that you are thinking in game rather than historical terms, the > very thing my group is trying to get away from. To lose those three provinces > to Russia should be a major disaster to Turkey, not so much for provinces > themselves but for the political effects. Firstly Turkey's status as the sick > man of Europe would be confirmed for all the world to see. Secondly, and by > far most damagingly, that demonstration of Ottoman weakness would lead to > serious nationalist uprisings throughout every province (except Anatolia), > conquered minor and free state of the empire as the natives saw the chance to > throw off the Ottoman yolk. The Turkish army would have to spent the rest of > the game trying (and not necessarily succeeding) to put down the revolts. Which is exactly what they did do, if you read the designer's notes, he mentions something about low income from instable areas. For instance there was a revolt in Serbia that went on for several years 18??-1812. And Russia held Moldavia and Wallacia between 1806-1812, recceiving Bessarabia in 1812, IIRC. By 1829 Turkey had lost control of Moldavia, Wallachia, Grecce and parts of Georgia if not officially so at least technically. So in EiA, technically Turkey is fighting revolts and corruption abstracted by the system. > In many ways it is a shame but until someone can come up with a > political/victory system that makes Empires in Arms a game about the > Napoleonic wars rather than a more complex version of Diplomacy it is destined > to gather dust on my shelf, > Kurt Frank Empires in Arms has it's flaws and has you have noted they are more obvious in the diplomatic system. However I think that the style of play of your group might compound the flaws in the system, and I think the new political system as you have drafted, would be even more flawed than EIA's system as is. Remember, 1 shift on the political display is less than 1 VP. If the compounded VPs awarded/deducted by your system exceed the VPs a power can gain on the political display, then the game is already over for that power. If you want France to "coast to victory", then perhaps you are better off having some kind of "sudden death victory conditions". You are telling me what you hope to acceive with some added rules, I am not critizing your goal. I only think that your formula wont be a cure, as is. I also think there are bigger flaws in the diplomatic system than the ones you have pointed out. But, by all means, try playing with your system. Then come back and tell what happened. FYI, there was another person who tried writing a "National aspirations" system years back. Do a search on it, and maybe you can find it and maybe it is useful. Kurt S Frank wrote in message news<3C4BF832.F067D5F@optusnet.com.au> I'm not sure I made it quite clear what I was trying to achieve when writing these national objectives, simply put I was hoping to create a system that would encourage historical play. In my opinion Empires in Arms is a seriously flawed masterpiece, the game mechanics and economics are, almost without exception, elegant and simple and I have no complaints with them. Also if you're after "A game of DIPLOMACY in a Napoleonic setting" it's unsurpassed, however the problem is that Empires in Arms claims to be the "Game of NAPOLEONIC diplomacy and warfare" and at that it's an abysmal failure. Perhaps the most blatant flaw is that the political system allows (and the victory point system encourages) the players to act in a way that at best takes serious advantage of historical hindsight. For instance in two of the three games I've played the French Army has been totally defeated by Dec 1806, while in the other game it was only averted by two inept players making extremely stupid mistakes. The 1805 start, especially if using the Britain and France at war rule, is like playing a game of World in Flames and allowing the USA and USSR to declare war on the axis powers freely. Even worse, at times the victory point system encourages players to act in a way that is clearly at odds with their nation's long term interests. If, say, Turkey was doing extremely well then the historical French response would be "Excellent, that should keep the Austrians distracted", but in the game it becomes "Oh, no, I'll have to ally with Austria and go crush them". In our most recent (and aborted) game the Russian player decided it was more important to sink the French navy by capturing it's ports rather than conquering territory. >Kurt S Frank wrote: >> Our gaming group decided to give this game another try despite some >> truly ludicrous events without any historical justification in our >> previous game. For example every country in the game invaded Spain, >> even though it had no external possessions, as it was threatening to do >> something truly horrible, that is, to win. >Christian Beijner wrote: >Yeah, this is bad, but it happens. Historically and generally it is >France (or GB) that is winning. Our Russian player said of his involvement in the great alliance to crush Spain "Yes, I know it's stupid, I know there's no historical justification for it and I know I won't respect myself in the morning, but it's what I've got to do to win. Besides with every other ridiculous thing that's happened in this game, one more isn't going to matter." My gaming group felt cheated and dirty after playing the game and swore never to do so again unless constraints and/or penalities/bonuses were put in to give it a more historical flavour. >Christian Beijner wrote: >It seems your system adds a lot more points into the system and thus >haphazardness. If things go well for someone, say France early on, then >you REALLY need to hit them in the mid/later game. With an average of >7-8 VP awarded every 3 turns, little points can really hurt or float a nation. The idea was that if France had achieved all it's objectives then it should be able to coast to a win. Remember that historically France only choose to start two major power wars in this period, Spain in 1808 and Russia in 1812, all the others were forced upon France to some degree. Rather interesting that the ones she started were the complete disasters, there's got to be a moral in there somewhere. None the less if France had gained Germany, Italy and Poland then she had gained everything she wanted in Europe and there is no HISTORICAL justification for continuing to roll neighbouring countries. However in EiA to win France has to keep on smashing it's neighbours, the objectives were meant avoid this effect and offer an alternative path to victory. >Christian Beijner wrote: >For instance if I play Russia, I make it my mission - at some >point in the game - to take the 3 border states from Turkey. Now I won't >say that Turkey releases them willingly, but from a money/manpower >situation their loss to Turkey is somewhat shruggable - especially if >coupled with a compensating alliance and money to Turkey - compared to >some other areas than can be lost by powers. And historically they were >not very Turkish. Playing with your system, any loss for Turkey is a >major disaster. I suggest that you are thinking in game rather than historical terms, the very thing my group is trying to get away from. To lose those three provinces to Russia should be a major disaster to Turkey, not so much for provinces themselves but for the political effects. Firstly Turkey's status as the sick man of Europe would be confirmed for all the world to see. Secondly, and by far most damagingly, that demonstration of Ottoman weakness would lead to serious nationalist uprisings throughout every province (except Anatolia), conquered minor and free state of the empire as the natives saw the chance to throw off the Ottoman yolk. The Turkish army would have to spent the rest of the game trying (and not necessarily succeeding) to put down the revolts. Finally, on a more personal note the sultan would then place the Grand Vizier's (i.e. the player's) head on a pike in the central square of Constantinople as a warning to others. In many ways it is a shame but until someone can come up with a political/victory system that makes Empires in Arms a game about the Napoleonic wars rather than a more complex version of Diplomacy it is destined to gather dust on my shelf, Kurt Frank Christian Beijner wrote in message news: <3C4AA499.DDC3A8B0@nada.kth.se> Kurt S Frank wrote: > > Our gaming group decided to give this game another try despite some > truly ludicrous events without any historical justification in our > previous game. For example every country in the game invaded Spain, > even though it had no external possessions, as it was threatening to do > something truly horrible, that is, to win. Yeah, this is bad, but it happens. Historically and generally it is France (or GB) that is winning. > France > -7 Vp for attempting to eat frogs and snails into extinction. Automatic? > -1 Vp for every province of the French home nation that has been ceded. This system is already flawed. Is not losing an area - and probably dominant status - enough penalty? > -1 Vp if France is NOT a Dominant Major Power. Apparantly not. > +1 Vp for each of the following that France controls: Flanders, Holland, > Lombardy, Palatinate, Piedmont, Switzerland, Poland and the Kingdom of > Italy. > +2 Vp if France is the only Dominant Major Power. It seems your system adds a lot more points into the system and thus haphazardness. If things go well for someone, say France early on, then you REALLY need to hit them in the mid/later game. With an average of 7-8 VP awarded every 3 turns, little points can really hurt or float a nation. For instance if I play Russia, I make it my mission - at some point in the game - to take the 3 border states from Turkey. Now I won't say that Turkey releases them willingly, but from a money/manpower situation their loss to Turkey is somewhat shruggable - especially if coupled with a compensating alliance and money to Turkey - compared to some other areas than can be lost by powers. And historically they were not very Turkish. Playing with your system, any loss for Turkey is a major disaster. > +1 Vp if the French army is larger than the 2 largest out of the > Austrian, Prussian, British and Spanish armies combined. I guess different people play differently, but we play with hidden strengths. Now you have to go and divulge your numbers every 3 months? Ok, personally I try to keep track of my enemies strength, so it's not like I am opposed to open strengths, but it would not work with my group. Ok, so the basic political system is flawed in EiA, but I still think it is better without your additions. If I would like to see some changes it would be some political system to influence minors without declaring war on them.